David Cameron must set out a credible direction of travel whose goal is a
healthier, more benign relationship with the European Union

David Cameron gave a succinct explanation in the House of Commons yesterday for his determination to strike a new deal with the European Union. He warned that the most dangerous position this country could take in the light of changes being forced by the eurozone sovereign debt crisis would be to stand back and say we are going to do nothing about it. The Prime Minister said that Britain had to fight for the new deal it wants “so then we can ask for the consent of the British people to settle this issue once and for all”.

This will be the broad thrust of the much-anticipated speech on Europe that he will deliver in the Netherlands tomorrow. Mr Cameron hopes it will quell the growing restiveness in his own ranks over the issue, though that is probably a forlorn hope. As far as Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, was concerned yesterday, our relationship with the EU is fine and dandy. He had nothing to offer on Labour’s own plans for the simple reason that there are none. He was intent only on targeting Tory divisions and denouncing Mr Cameron for “losing control” of his party.

This is a tired caricature. Unlike Labour, the Conservative Party is engaged in a passionate and open discussion about our relationship with the EU. It frequently generates great heat, but also plenty of light. Yesterday, the Fresh Start group of more than 100 Tory MPs published a manifesto for change, but not withdrawal. This vigorous debate includes those who advocate withdrawal and those, led by Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke, who caution against any serious attempt to challenge the status quo. All are arguing with conviction – and with courtesy – about the future direction of this country’s foreign policy. A headache for the party leader it might be, but isn’t it also rather healthy?

If Mr Miliband deems this worthy only of his sneers, he is making a serious mistake. But his response is characteristic of the internationalist Left, who are quick to champion every country’s point of view except their own. The Labour leader is echoing the views of the Brussels establishment, for whom such democratic rigour is anathema. They insist that any constitutional changes emanating from the eurozone crisis can be effected within existing treaties. They do not want Britain to rock the boat. Sir Nigel Sheinwald, formerly our ambassador to both the EU and Washington, spoke in the authentic voice of the Brussels elites yesterday when he warned that “a Britain on the sidelines of Europe, even more out of Europe, would not be in the American interest and would not be in the interest of other major European partners”.

Such threats are par for the course, but are essentially empty. We are due a treaty re-negotiation in the near future. Over the past two decades these have occurred on average every five years and the last – Lisbon – came into effect in 2009. As for “rocking the boat” by offering a referendum on our relationship, there is nothing novel in it. There have been 18 national referendums on treaty changes over the past 20 years – France has held three, Denmark four, Ireland six.

Mr Cameron needs to do two things in particular in tomorrow’s speech. First, he must frame his policy as an attempt to save our relationship with Europe. He must dispel the dangerous complacency taking hold in Brussels that, despite the seismic impact of the eurozone crisis, the consequences can be massaged away via Eurocrat finesse. Second, he must not box himself in. This is going to be a protracted, years-long process during which circumstances will change. The Prime Minister will require the maximum negotiating flexibility. He must set out a credible direction of travel whose goal is a healthier, more benign relationship with the EU – which can then be put to the British people for their endorsement.